Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem

[soundforbjt]

Rather's alleged actions are hugely different from William's or O'Reilly. Hugely

Williams was the 'Face" of NBC news. O'Reilly is the face of nothing but his own program.

Under Williams' Nightly News show was losing ground to the others. I heard that in the aftermath of his problems, but before he stepped down, ratings were dropping faster. I think that's why he was suspended. As I've said before, it's all about the money.

I don't know what's going on with O'Reilly's ratings, but I doubt they'll be able to replace him with a show that brings in more money.

Lester Holt's ratings are better than Williams' were. So I doubt we see Williams return.

Fern

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Bill is the "face" of Fox News to a huge extent, his show is the most popular one on the network, get rid of Bill and watch the ratings drop like crazy.

 

[Fern]

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Bill is the "face" of Fox News to a huge extent, his show is the most popular one on the network, get rid of Bill and watch the ratings drop like crazy.

O'Reilly is just one of many shows on the Fox News channel. I see no evidence that getting rid of his show will make the other shows have a lower viewership.

O'Reilly isn't the face of Fox at all. Heck, he isn't even an executive at Fox News, unlike BW.

If Fox dumps him he could easily just carry his show over to CNN etc. BW couldn't (can't) do that.

Fern

 

[Dari]

That is a completely unjustified inference. The issue here is not whether the Argentinian government was an exemplar for excellence in the field of civil rights. The issue is whether O'Reilly personally saw troops killing protesters. There is no credible evidence that this occurred. The fact that the government might have committed other misdeeds has nothing to do with this question.

Whatever. Based on what I've heard I can imagine it happening. Again, if reporters were there to cover events like wars and protests then we should not have to stretch our imagination to think a reporter would see such a thing. If O'Reilly reported these events 30 years ago (like our family friend Jones did) then it's probably true. I have not read the details of this brouhaha over O'Reilly's statements. Have they been questioned over the past 30 years?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I have not read the details of this brouhaha over O'Reilly's statements. Have they been questioned over the past 30 years?

Not that I've seen.

And I think that's just another one of the reasons O'Reilly stays (unless the JFK/doctor suicide thing gets traction). Stuff that did or did not happen +30 yrs ago, well before the internet (heck well before PCs were common), are hard to prove and/or disprove. To make matters worse whatever did happen was under a very repressive regime that routinely covered stuff up.

 

[emperus]

Whatever. Based on what I've heard I can imagine it happening. Again, if reporters were there to cover events like wars and protests then we should not have to stretch our imagination to think a reporter would see such a thing. If O'Reilly reported these events 30 years ago (like our family friend Jones did) then it's probably true. I have not read the details of this brouhaha over O'Reilly's statements. Have they been questioned over the past 30 years?

There have been contemporaneous reports of the incident. No reporter who was there said they witnessed anyone being killed, witnessed O'Reilly saving an injured cameraman, or any soldiers using live ammunition.

They also have live video of the incident.

 

[Dari]

There have been contemporaneous reports of the incident. No reporter who was there said they witnessed anyone being killed, witnessed O'Reilly saving an injured cameraman, or any soldiers using live ammunition.

They also have live video of the incident.

So was it questioned then or is everyone coming out of the woodwork now? I can see O'Reilly stretching the truth a bit (I haven't met anyone in a war zone who hasn't) but if this has not been a lingering debate I think this may be a defensive move on Brian Williams's supporters...

 

[emperus]

So was it questioned then or is everyone coming out of the woodwork now? I can see O'Reilly stretching the truth a bit (I haven't met anyone in a war zone who hasn't) but if this has not been a lingering debate I think this may be a defensive move on Brian Williams's supporters...

I'm not sure. People probably brought it up before but it probably fell on deaf ears. Someone probably thought it was a good opening because of how Bill O'reilly went after Brian Williams.

 

[MongGrel]

O'Reilly isn't the face of Fox at all.


Fern

News to me.

Must have missed it somewhere

 

[Meghan54]

Whatever. Based on what I've heard I can imagine it happening. Again, if reporters were there to cover events like wars and protests then we should not have to stretch our imagination to think a reporter would see such a thing. If O'Reilly reported these events 30 years ago (like our family friend Jones did) then it's probably true. I have not read the details of this brouhaha over O'Reilly's statements. Have they been questioned over the past 30 years?

So was it questioned then or is everyone coming out of the woodwork now? I can see O'Reilly stretching the truth a bit (I haven't met anyone in a war zone who hasn't) but if this has not been a lingering debate I think this may be a defensive move on Brian Williams's supporters...

Well, O'Reilly had been rather vocal about Williams, and you know what they say about throwing stones and living in glass houses......


Now, about your imagination, supposition, and pure guess work, as you put it in the quoted post above.....you know, where you said you imagine it happened, can guess it happened.

But no other person who was there at the time says it happened other than O'Reilly. Where's the cameraman who O'Reilly saved? Seems rather simple to have him show up on O'Reilly's show, say "Yes, Bill pulled me to safety during that riot." and shut this all down.

And the cameraman has appeared and buttressed O'Reilly's story when....?

 

[Jhhnn]

So was it questioned then or is everyone coming out of the woodwork now? I can see O'Reilly stretching the truth a bit (I haven't met anyone in a war zone who hasn't) but if this has not been a lingering debate I think this may be a defensive move on Brian Williams's supporters...

Nobody is defending Williams. That leaves a huge hole in your argument.

Williams admits his error. O'Reilly doubles down on lies of self aggrandizement. Which deserves the greater respect?

NBC suspended Williams. Fox News closed ranks behind O'Reilly. Which deserves the greater respect?

It'll all blow over eventually. Williams? Who knows? O'Reilly? He'll still be carrying the message on Fox, bloviating on script, just with fewer people believing a word that he says.

 

[werepossum]

So was it questioned then or is everyone coming out of the woodwork now? I can see O'Reilly stretching the truth a bit (I haven't met anyone in a war zone who hasn't) but if this has not been a lingering debate I think this may be a defensive move on Brian Williams's supporters...

Obviously it is a defensive move by Williams's supporters & O'Reilly's detractors, but that doesn't make it wrong. Whatever O'Reilly witnessed, it wasn't in a war zone at all. It's like saying that WWII continental America was a war zone because we were at war.

I don't really have a problem with O'Reilly, but apparently O'Reilly has a problem with O'Reilly since he's bound and determined to pad his resume to the point of embarrassment. Same with his teaching career; I've seen him harangue people based on the wisdom he gained as a teacher, which was something like a fifteen month career.

Frankly, people like O'Reilly and Williams are a big part of my burn-out on news and politics. If they can't even be honest about trivial matters, why the hell would I want to hear anything they say on serious matters?

 

[trenchfoot]

The bottom line -

O'Reilly: "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. And now, well, now that I'm a multi-millionaire upstanding leader and bleeding edge icon of the conservative movement, well, all I have to do is pronounce an edict that what I said back then is the truth and the world will have to agree with me or I will destroy any and all that want to challenge my.....recollection."

 

[Dari]

Obviously it is a defensive move by Williams's supporters & O'Reilly's detractors, but that doesn't make it wrong. Whatever O'Reilly witnessed, it wasn't in a war zone at all. It's like saying that WWII continental America was a war zone because we were at war.

I don't really have a problem with O'Reilly, but apparently O'Reilly has a problem with O'Reilly since he's bound and determined to pad his resume to the point of embarrassment. Same with his teaching career; I've seen him harangue people based on the wisdom he gained as a teacher, which was something like a fifteen month career.

Frankly, people like O'Reilly and Williams are a big part of my burn-out on news and politics. If they can't even be honest about trivial matters, why the hell would I want to hear anything they say on serious matters?

Ok, I'm just now seeing the quote.

link

It all started with this article by David Corn and Daniel Schulman published in Mother Jones on Thursday, in which they detailed how on many occasions over the years, O’Reilly has characterized himself as a veteran of war reporting. Among the quotes they cited are times when O’Reilly said things like “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands,” and “having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash,” and “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands…” That O’Reilly said these things is not in question. But in fact, O’Reilly was never in the Falklands, and he never reported from any “combat situation.”

He was never in the Falklands. I thought he said Buenos Aires was "like a war zone". Also, he forgot to mention (conveniently, I might add) that he was covering the Falklands war, not there. So, yeah, he probably did exaggerate if he said he was in the Falklands when he was elsewhere. However, in Buenos Aires (sic?) looks like the whole place may have been like a war zone, but not necessarily one. Looks like he lied to me, from the quote I quoted.

 

[dank69]

Ok, I'm just now seeing the quote.

link



He was never in the Falklands. I thought he said Buenos Aires was "like a war zone". Also, he forgot to mention (conveniently, I might add) that he was covering the Falklands war, not there. So, yeah, he probably did exaggerate if he said he was in the Falklands when he was elsewhere. However, in Buenos Aires (sic?) looks like the whole place may have been like a war zone, but not necessarily one. Looks like he lied to me, from the quote I quoted.

Oh great! So now you're just another Brian Williams supporter...

 

[bshole]

Frankly, people like O'Reilly and Williams are a big part of my burn-out on news and politics. If they can't even be honest about trivial matters, why the hell would I want to hear anything they say on serious matters?

I tell everybody (from coworkers to anonymous bb posters) that will listen about all of the smoking hot girls I nailed in college. Given the length of time that has passed, I am no longer 100% sure about the quantity or the quality.... although I always pimp it up as huge numbers and epic quality. I have to wonder if I might not have a O'Reilly type problem and whether it is impinging on my own credibility. I would never want a poster of your elevated and revered reputation/stature to think less of me because of my boastful tendecies. I am taking all of this as a precautionary tale. There but for the grace of God go I....

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm guessing the next dominoes to fall will be that he falsified his interviews with Jesus and Lincoln. Didn't he claim to be there when Jesus freed the slaves?

Anyway...I think Fox News needs to rectify this situation immediately. Start sending him to war zones.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well, since Bill has now lied on his own program defending himself, that makes him worse than Williams.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern

O'Reilly isn't the face of Fox at all.


Fern

News to me.

Must have missed it somewhere

Everybody already forgetting Rupert Murdoch?

And Roger Ailes?

How many faces can Fox News have? What about Sean Hannity? Is he a face of Fox News too?

Fern

 

[BurnItDwn]

Well, since Bill has now lied on his own program defending himself, that makes him worse than Williams.

It makes him better. Being stubborn and not giving in is being childish and arrogant. Being childish and arrogant are great qualities in a person. Arrogance of listening to your own gut instead of listening to scientists with their "data" and "scientific method." And indeed, childish is good. To have a childs view of the world where everything is black and white makes somebody more electable. In fact, to be elected in the USA, one needs to be both Arrogant and Childish, otherwise, you wont be polarized enough to get enough people interested in hating you to make it on to the news.

 

[Jhhnn]

Everybody already forgetting Rupert Murdoch?

And Roger Ailes?

How many faces can Fox News have? What about Sean Hannity? Is he a face of Fox News too?

Fern

How many Gods in the Greek Pantheon?

There are many faces for Mt Olympus.

 

[Meghan54]

Everybody already forgetting Rupert Murdoch?

And Roger Ailes?

How many faces can Fox News have? What about Sean Hannity? Is he a face of Fox News too?

Fern

I'd say yes to every example you have.

When Walter Cronkite was the "face" of CBS News, I also considered Dan Rather to also be a face of CBS News. Also Roger Mudd.

I think you'd consider both Ballmer and Gates to be faces of Microsoft.

 

[soundforbjt]

Everybody already forgetting Rupert Murdoch?

And Roger Ailes?

How many faces can Fox News have? What about Sean Hannity? Is he a face of Fox News too?

Fern

Murdoch & Ailes, what time slot are their shows on?

 

[Fern]

Well, IMO a person can't be "The Face" if there are numerous faces.

BW was "The Face".

Yes, Cronkite was the face. But no more. Same with Rather. I don't think of Mudd as the face of any particular news org, just as a well known newsman.

And once you get past Rather I don't think of any of the newer anchors as "The Face". (I had to google to see who they were.)

To me only Gates is "The Face" of MS. I wouldn't recognize Ballmer if he was standing next to me.

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Most people wouldn't have a clue who Murdoch, Ailes, & Sean are either, if they saw them.

But a lot of them would know who Bill is.

To be the "Face", you have to be immediately recognized by the general public as associated with the "Brand" (Fox).

Bill has been on Letterman, Colbert, Stewart, The View and countless others, He is the Face.